Page 848 - Atlas of Creation Volume 1

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phe-
nomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an
apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intu-
itive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door. 172
The term "a priori" that Lewontin uses here is quite important. This philosophical term refers to a presup-
position not based on any experimental knowledge. A thought is "a priori" when you consider it to be correct

and accept it as so even if there is no information available to confirm it. As the evolutionist Lewontin frankly
states, materialism is an "a priori" commitment for evolutionists, who then try to adapt science to this precon-
ception. Since materialism definitely necessitates denying the existence of a Creator, they embrace the only al-
ternative they have in hand, which is the theory of evolution. It does not matter to such scientists that evolution

has been belied by scientific facts, because they have accepted it "a priori" as true.
This prejudiced behaviour leads evolutionists to a belief that "unconscious matter composed itself", which
is contrary not only to science, but also to reason. Professor of chemistry from New York University and a DNA
expert Robert Shapiro, as we have quoted before, explains this belief of evolutionists and the materialist dogma

lying at its base as follows:
Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural
chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but
it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of
the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by
Alexander Oparin. 173
Evolutionist propaganda, which we constantly come across in the Western media and in well-known and

"esteemed" science magazines, is the outcome of this ideological necessity. Since evolution is considered to be
indispensable, it has been turned into a sacred cow by the circles that set the standards of science.
Some scientists find themselves in a position where they are forced to defend this far-fetched theory, or at

least avoid uttering any word against it, in order to maintain their reputations. Academics in the Western coun-
tries have to have articles published in certain scientific journals to attain and hold onto their professorships. All
of the journals dealing with biology are under the control of evolutionists, and they do not allow any anti-evolu-
tionist article to appear in them. Biologists, therefore, have to conduct their research under the domination of this
theory. They, too, are part of the established order, which regards evolution as an ideological necessity, which is

why they blindly defend all the "impossible coincidences" we have been examining in this book.

Materialist Confessions

The German biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth, a prominent evolutionist, is a good example of this bigoted
materialist understanding. After Ditfurth cites an example of the extremely complex composition of life, this is
what he says concerning the question of whether it could have emerged by chance or not:

Is such a harmony that emerged only out of coincidences possible in reality? This is the basic question of the
whole of biological evolution. Answering this question as "Yes, it is possible" is something like verifying faith in
the modern science of nature. Critically speaking, we can say that somebody who accepts the modern science of
nature has no other alternative than to say "yes", because he aims to explain natural phenomena by means that
are understandable and tries to derive them from the laws of nature without reverting to supernatural interfer-
ence. However, at this point, explaining everything by means of the laws of nature, that is, by coincidences, is a
sign that he has nowhere else to turn. Because what else could he do other than believe in coincidences? 174
As Ditfurth states, the materialist scientific approach adopts as its basic principle explaining life by deny-

ing "supernatural interference", i.e. creation. Once this principle is adopted, even the most impossible scenarios
are easily accepted. It is possible to find examples of this dogmatic mentality in almost all evolutionist litera-
ture. Professor Ali Demirsoy, the well-known advocate of evolutionary theory in Turkey, is just one of many. As
we have already pointed out, according to Demirsoy: the probability of the coincidental formation of

cythochrome-C, an essential protein for life, is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history
of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes". 175

846 Atlas of Creation